British publisher catalogues Tony Abbott's failings on the Australian environment

"IS TONY Abbott's Australian administration the most hostile to his nation's environment in history?"

That's the question posed by a British publisher who has catalogued Mr Abbott's failings on the Australian environment.

In the editorial, The Independent's Kathy Marks refers to the federal government as the "most conservation-hostile in living memory" and refers to Greens leader Christine Milne's speech describing Australia as an "international laughing stock".

The editorial comes after a number of decisions by the federal government that have critics up in arms, concerned for the welfare of the country's natural resources, fauna and flora.

So, news.com.au decided to pose the question to YOU, our readers.

These are the most controversial environmental decisions made since Mr Abbott was crowned PM and we ask, is the government doing enough to conserve Australia's environment?

Despite a number of protests across the country, the West Australian Government is refusing to back down on its controversial shark cull policy, which sees the introduction of baited lines to lure and kill sharks - any species as long as it measures more than 3m - from selected beaches.

News_Image_File: Fisheries Department take its first shark before 7am on Australia Day, just off WA's Leighton beach. Picture: Theo Fakos

The decision to cull, which began on Australia Day, came after seven fatal shark-related attacks over three years.

Environment Minister Scott Hunt has ensured the west coast is exempt from the federal government's White Shark Recovery Plan, which protects the great white from poaching or culling in Commonwealth waters.

News_Image_File: Western Australia is exempt from laws attempting to save the great white shark. Picture: Theo Fakos

The updated document describes the great white shark's status as "vulnerable" but, it continues, "in some circumstances, the destruction of individual sharks is also authorised under Western Australia's Fish Resources Management Act 1994".

Activists believe the controversial policy won't affect the number of attacks and that messing with our sharks means we're messing with other marine wildlife.

"It doesn't make sense. It's indiscriminate slaughter of not only sharks but dolphins and turtles and other animals that get caught up on these hooks," South Australian Acting Environment Minister Leon Bignell told the ABC.

News_Rich_Media: The State Government has begun its shark kill program off the coast of Perth

QUEENSLAND: THE GREAT BARRIER REEF

The World Heritage Committee is threatening to list one of the great wonders of the world as "in danger" after a number of controversial decisions by the federal government thrust the reef into the international spotlight.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt has approved four major developments along the Great Barrier Reef's World Heritage Area, including a new coal terminal at Abbott Point (the most northerly deepwater coal port of Australia) and a processing plant for coal seam gas on Curtis Island (off the coast of Queensland).

Meanwhile, the decision to allow three million cubic metres of sludge to be dumped off the Great Barrier Reef has environmentalists predicting its death sooner rather later.

News_Image_File: The Great Barrier Reef is under serious threat. Picture: AP Photo

WWF detail concerns in a report released by UNESCO'S World Heritage Committee, including the fact the federal government is "handing over environmental approval powers to the Queensland Government just as the Queensland Government is watering down state legislation in ways that 'actively impede' protection of the reef".

But in a progress report to the Committee, the government says its getting on with the job of protecting the reef.

"It is a permanent task for every Australian government to protect and maintain the reef; nobody can ever rest on that," Environment Minister Greg Hunt told Fairfax media.

"But there should be no way the reef can and should be considered 'in danger'.''

The listing will be handed down when the World Heritage Committee meets in Qatar in June this year.

News_Rich_Media: Environmentalists are up in arms tonight, with approval given to dump dredged spoil in the Great Barrier Reef.

TASMANIA: FORESTS

The federal government is attempting to remove a chunk of Tasmania's sacred forests from UNESCO's World Heritage listing less than a year after it was approved. The government wants 74,000ha to be delisted in an area which includes some of the country's tallest and oldest trees and important Aboriginal sites.

The government claims parts of the 170,000ha listing included areas that had previously been used for logging purposes and did not fit the heritage bill.

"I think it's important to recognise there are degraded areas which should never have been included," Mr Hunt said.

"It's quite bizarre that you have heavily logged and destroyed areas which simply weren't up to standard included."

News_Image_File: L-R: Vica Bayley from the Wilderness Society with Julian Cooke from The Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union in the Styx Valley of the Giants in South West Tasmania. The area was recently World Heritage Listed and could be opened up for logging by the Coalition.

But Peter Hitchcock, who advised on last year's Tasmanian World Heritage extensions, told The Australian, "I can verify that the great majority of what is proposed to be excised (from the World Heritage Area) - about 90 per cent - has not been disturbed," he said.

"And that's not the message you get from the (government) media releases or the Department of Environment website. It conveys the impression that it (the 74,000ha) is all rubbish, all logged. "That is not so. Roughly about five to six per cent of the areas proposed to be excised would have been logged since 1960. Anything that was logged before 1960, if there was any, would be so selectively (harvested) that you would hardly notice."

SCIENCE MINISTER NO MORE

Among one of Mr Abbott's most controversial decisions of his new cabinet was the removal of a science minister, the first time since the creation of a science portfolio in 1931.

"It seems inconceivable that we do not have a minister of Parliament that is responsible for the sciences," Catriona Jackson, the CEO of Science and Technology Australia, told news.com.au.

The portfolio is now shared between the Industry and Education ministries.

No Minister for Science, but we'll have a Minister for Defense Against the Dark Arts, right? #Auspol#fantastycabinet

News.com.au's Privacy Policy includes important information about our collection, use and disclosure of your personal information (including to provide you with targeted content and advertising based on your online activities). It explains that if you do not provide us with information we have requested from you, we may not be able to provide you with the goods and services you require. It also explains how you can access or seek correction of your personal information, how you can complain about a breach of the Australian Privacy Principles and how we will deal with a complaint of that nature.